USA vs the World

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 07:36

Inspired by the "What is the World Prepared to Do to Contain American Aggression?" thread, what if the world decided to unite (as if that will ever happen) and attack the US?

Who would win?

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 07:38

I wanted to make a poll. oh well

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 08:37

anyway, I think the World would have to give up after getting nuked

Proteus_MST · February 9, 2003, 08:46

If "The World" includes Russia it also has nukes

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 08:50

american nukes are better! I think.

Sandman · February 9, 2003, 09:13

The world.

Paul Hanson · February 9, 2003, 09:16

I'd side with America.

Pekka · February 9, 2003, 09:19

world 100-1. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't have nukes. Also if it attacked the US, it would attack with nukes, because the US would defend itself by nuking in that situation. I think it's pretty absurd to claim else..

Of course this is until I get my green cards etc things working, then the US will beat the world

. So, it's up to them.

Mazarin · February 9, 2003, 09:21

how do you define the quality of nukes?..i'm sure the russian/chinese/french nukes will be good enough not to let much left to be destroyed by american nukes.

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 09:26

the US is capable of shooting down ICBMs, no?

Kropotkin · February 9, 2003, 09:50

Both will lose, there's no winners in a nuclear war.

Az · February 9, 2003, 10:03

The coakroach/rat/chemoautotropic bacteria alliance will win.

Wernazuma III · February 9, 2003, 14:22

Thus the USA wins

Sava · February 9, 2003, 14:25

Even without nuclear weapons, the US would lose because only hard-core authoritative conservatives and their brainwashed minions would fight this war. So really, it's them vs the world. IMO, I don't even think these people would win a war with the rest of the country.

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Thus the USA wins

harsh, man. harsh.

Sarxis · February 9, 2003, 14:31

Anyone ever play that board game Invasion USA? It was a A&A style game, though with modern weapons and vehicles. Quite a lot of fun actually.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 14:37

Have it....almost impossible to conquer the USA though....you make big early strides, but invariably get slaughtered.

-=Vel=-

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 14:46

World vs USA?

Normal war, win to World easily. The EU nations would form the technological core to any army to counteract the US units and the rest would provide mass quantities of troops for the shock corps.

In a nuclear war, no-one would win ( America can't shoot down ICBMs ), and the sheer number the British, French, Chinese, Indians, Israelis, Pakistanis & Russians have would be enough to nuke America 20 times over. The US would of course nuke most of the rest of the world. joy.

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

( America can't shoot down ICBMs ),

AEGIS cruisers can shoot them down if they're close enough to the launch site, I think.

but of course there's a limit to how many they can shoot down at the same time

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 15:10

i presume you mean if the aegis cruiser is at the destination site? not much use if they have to be at the launch site as they would be ineffective against land based ICBMs and can hardly be expected to be trailing missile subs all the time.

Gangerolf · February 9, 2003, 15:32

From what I've read (which is not much) it seems like they have to be near the launch site. I'm not sure why though

. Something about hitting them during ascent..

But I agree that what you said makes more sense

JimmyCracksCorn · February 9, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

standing in line... believing the lies... bowing down to the flag... you've got a bullet in your head...

KEWL M4N I LUV THAT SUNG ZACH IS SUCH A WIKED AWESUM RAPPER AND HES SMART T00!!!! DID YOU NOW HE WENT TO HARVERD OR SUMTHING? I WOULD BUY ANYTHING BY HIM!!!!!!!

David Floyd · February 9, 2003, 16:28

The US would easily win, if we keep the war conventional. I've posted extensively on this before, but what it comes down to is that the USN is insanely superior to the rest of the world's navies combined, and the fact that the USN could defeat any attempt to transfer troops across the Atlantic/Pacific.

Canada's armed forces could easily be destroyed and the useful parts of Canada (breadbasket, oil, manufacturing areas) occupied. Mexico and the rest of the Central/South American armies would not present much of a problem - a couple US divisions on the Texas/Mexico border backed up by the Texas Guard and a few hundred aircraft would do the trick.

I suppose the Russians could try an invasion of Alaska out of Kamchatka, but there are major supply problems there - I just don't see how they could supply enough troops to defeat the US military in Alaska and occupy anything other than a few islands and a few square miles of ice. And this isn't even counting the intervention of the USN, which would rip apart any attempting landing.

The only other possibility I see is an EU strike from the UK-Iceland-Greenland-Canada - attempting to occupy those areas to establish a chain of airbases that could provide cover to transports. This ignores a couple of problems, though - the EU navies do not have enough transports to move significant numbers of troops long distances - it would take years to build up a large force, and if that force was being landed in Canada, the US would just destroy it piecemeal.

But that assumes they could even take Iceland and Greenland. Possibly they could take Iceland, but the US would simply drop a Marine Expeditionary Unit (or even Brigade) on Greenland, with some engineering units, anti-aircraft defenses, etc., and match the EU's Iceland base. That would lead to a stalemate.

Granted, the US couldn't invade too many people outside of this Hemisphere, but the point is that they could easily contain and destroy any attempts to send troops to the Western Hemisphere.

Kramerman · February 9, 2003, 17:53

Floyd makes good points

US isolation would be a huge advantage. Once major invasions are thrwted, the US could then use long range bombers to begin fire bombing cities into submission of countries that are singled out. Once those agree to ceasefire, the US would then move on to the next, all the while defending its shores with impunity. It would be brutal, millions upon milions of innocents would die (perhaps up to a billion by the time it is all over

) in the end, but it would be the only way to beat the rest of the world back into a ceasefire.

Sheer numbers tho, and production capacity of teh rest of the world would mean the US would need a good deal of luck on their side, but ti could be done.

Long term, if the US would win in this way, with families destroyed and half dead, extreme hatred for the US would exist throughout the world. They would probably hate the US even after America pumps trillions back into rebuilding the world in the Marshal Plan II...

Kman

Lord Merciless · February 9, 2003, 17:59

I don't think the world would ever unite in such a fashion. All those countries dislike each other thouroughly. Now some of them just appear to be united because the US is pressing a little too hard. Even then, we can still drive wedge in their alliances. If we pull ourselves out, you will be surprised about how quickly these guys will be at each other's throat.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
the US is capable of shooting down ICBMs, no?

No.

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 18:52

hmm the USN is a mighty powerful force but I don't believe even it could stand up to the rest of the World's combined power. Especially, if you consider that the aircraft and ships the USN uses have been sold to other navies and would be used against them.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be one hell of a fight, but World vs. USA could only result in a World victory esp. if the World was able to prepare for even a couple of months before a war started.

Give it a couple of years and the EU will be even more powerful militarily. At the moment, the EU already matches the US industrial power but the military does lack behind.

OneFootInTheGrave · February 9, 2003, 19:11

The reason why the world would win is because of industrial output, and sheer numbers... if you combine Russia China EU and India... plus add all of the South/Central America... US coudn't contain South America on its own, as there is barely 300 million people in the US, and even with all the tech advantages the guerilla war against the US would decimate its forces. No way that they could control all the area even though US has far superior technology. Can you kill everyone?

Add that the industrial output that would be created quickly by 3-4 billion of able people from the world, there is no way that would be very much like Germany/Japan vs the world. They might have the techical advantage at the beginning but soon the world would just run it over in superior numbers with matching technology in a year or two.

But no way that any war againt US in America would not be nuclear.